Klaus, you are right. Thanks
There is an interesting discussion in Wikipedia under "Dots per inch".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch
Resolution = (PhysicalSize) x (DPI)
where
Resolution is in dots i.e. related to physical size of the image file.
PhysicalSize is length of picture on screen or printer.
DPI is dots per length.
When you compress, WORD assumes the PhysicalSize is constant. It specifies a 200 DPI value for a printer. Therefore, it reduces the Resolution i.e. compresses the size of the image file to whatever makes the equation work.
In contrast, when you scale the picture using the handles, the Physical Size changes while the Resolution remains constant. Therefore, the DPI changes accordingly.
"Klaus Linke" wrote in message ...
I think you misunderstand what "dpi" means.
You wrote:
"Changing the Resolution in DPI should only change the physical size of how
something prints. It does not change the number of pixels in the image
itself."
It's just the other way around. Changing the resolution of the picture
should not change its physical size. It does change the number of pixels in
the image.
Many graphics formats specify the size of the image inside the graphics
file. It is quite independent of the resolution (dpi).
If you go down with the resolution (say from an image meant for printing
with 600 dpi to one for the web with 96 dpi), you can do with a lot less
pixels, and/or with a lot more agressive (lossy) compression.
Klaus
"John" wrote:
Thank you for the feedback.
I suspect WORD is using a lossy algorithmic shrink to change the Dimension
of Pixels to say 320x240. What is confusing is that the dialog says Print
200 dpi or Screen 96 dpi which does not change the Dimension of Pixels but
changes how many pixels of the Dimension of Pixels are printed per inch.
However, the physical size of the printed object and screen display do not
change after the compression. Therefore, by specifying 200 dpi (lower
density), WORD would need to make the Dimension of Pixels smaller in order
to have the same physical size.
It would be beneficial for Microsoft to clarify what they are doing.